INDEPENDENT CASE REVIEW REPORT

Independent Review conducted by: Steve Robertson

---~—]-—-~Area(s)-of Expertise:-—-Hair-and Fiber___ ._.

‘ Review commencedat: 11:45AM {Time), 03/12/2001 (Date)

95-284992

File #:

Laboratory #(s): 80920042 81101048

90524023

Examiner(s) & Symbols

Not Reviewed

Not Reviewed Reviewed

Reviewed

xo o oO o

WP aq - xa a Oo

B a oO

Matenals Reviewed

Trial testimony transcript(s) of: Michael Malone

June 6, 1989 Pages: 1036-1056

Testimony Date(s):

Laboratory Report(s):

Laboratory Number: 80920042/81101048 Date: Feb 27, 1989

Laboratory Number:

90524023 . Date: May 30, 1989

Laboratory Number: Date:

RQ Laboratory Number: 80920042/81101048

Examiner Bench Notes of:

90524023

Page

tnitiats; FU CRM - 11170

Was any other material reviewed? XO Yes O No

If yes, please identify and/or describe the material: | Submitting agency Jetters (dated 9-14-88, 10-26-88,

5-1-89, 5-23-89}

Results of Review

File #: 95-284992 Itern or Specimen # Reviewed: Q1-Q8, Qt3-Q37, K1, K4, K7

Review of Laboratory Report(s) and Bench Notes:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses

Did the examiner perform the appropriate tests in a scientifically acceptable mannezs, based on the methods, protocols, and analytic techniques available at the time of the original examination(s)? oY¥Yes ONo XQ Unable to Determine

Are the examination results set forth in the laboratory repor(s) supported and adequately documented in the bench notes? QY¥es XQNo~ G Unable to Determine

Review of Testimony:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses

D Transcript not available.

3) Testimony consistent with the laboratory report{s)? XO Yes ONo O Unable to Determine

4) Testimony consistent with the bench notes? XOYes ONo G Unable to Determine

5) Testimony within bounds of examiner's expertise? OYes XQNo = © Unable to Determine

Page 2 of 4

Initials: Suu

Comments (Set forth by above question 4, if applicable. Use “Additional Comments” Sheet, if needed)

File #: 95-284992

#1: With microscopic hair comparison, even with the best notes, there is no way to determine the comparison

was performed correctly.

#2: The examination results set forth in the Jaboratory report are supported by the bench notes, but the

documentation is marginally adequate. The notes are not dated or initialed and are in pencil.

#5: Malone testified that, based on literature and his own personal experience, if he matched a hair to a person the chance of finding another individual with the same hair is about one in five thousand. The published literature Malone refers to has been the subject of much debate. The conclusions reached in this literature has not

been duplicated, so using it to arrive at the one in five thousand chance is misleading. Malone's experience, as

Review completed at: 1:00 PM (Time), 03/12/2001 (Date)

Total time spent conducting review (to nearest 1/4 hour): 1:15 hours

I hereby certify that 1 conducted this review in an independent, unbiased manner and that the results of my review are fully documented on this report consisting of a total of 4 pages.

- ee pe March 12, 2001

(Signature) (Date}

Additional Comments (Set forth by question #, if applicable}

File #: 95-284992

#5 (continued): this reviewer has learned from reading numerous transcripts of his testimony, is that he claims to

have examined hair from over ten thousand people and only 2-3 times has found the hair to be the same. This

experience of his is not the same as comparing the hair from all 10,000 people to each other. Malone's one in

five thousand estimate, based upon his experience, is misleading and not supported by the forensic community

(see US v Massey, 594 F.2d 676)

Page 4 of 4

Initials; WE